Yeah, things are progressing. The move is moving forward. It’s looking like about six weeks or so of this posting that we will be back.
The web-store will be back when we are able to produce. There may be a delay in between when you order and when we ship, but no more than a week as we sort the production and shipping in the new location.
This has been one of the wildest journeys so far. The potential here is going to be next level for the entire team.
We had a customer complain about one of our Studebaker clips not capable of an alignment recently. With all the shims removed from the adjusting plate, there was still negative camber.
I had to investigate further, and on a chassis we are supplying right now we had the same issue come up. This is brand new for us, so I needed to investigate. This is what I came up with. The upper ball joint bore is moved outboard about 1/2″.
This is causing a few problems, First off is the Camber issue. Second is going to be an issue of scrub radius. This may not cause any driveability issues, but you may notice a bit more wheel kickback on uneven road surfaces.
Short solution is to use a longer control arm, in some cases where the stock slot and T-bolt are used, you may not have much of an alignment issue.
I spoke with a representative from Heidt’s this afternoon. Of course this issue has never come up with them. He informed me they use a 1/4″ longer control arm at 8″ from pivot to ball joint. No reason given as to why. I want to caution everyone that if you are to mix-match parts, you may end up with a front end that you can’t align.
We have used the Heidt’s and CPP dropped spindles without this problem. I have used the stock height spindles from SPC and Kaiser without issue.
I want to go further with you as to what these changes will make to the way your front end will drive and handle in a future date. Right now I just needed to get this information out there.
One of the reasons for doing the redesign is for you the customer to navigate and find products easier.
The other is to add in a new forum that will go live in the next few days (I hope) where you and I can engage in a more technical sense. I get asked to help people sort their suspension issues on all sorts of vehicles.
I am working to put together a searchable forum where we can get in-depth with the true geometry of what makes your IFS work and why. This will be a subscription service, Sorry folks but more and more of my time is being taken up by answering questions. For those of you who are customers, you will get access to the forums, but for those of you on the fence, the fee will be minimal. In that forthcoming forum, we can get in-depth to get your ride working the way you want it to.
Eventually, I would like to expand the forum to be an offsite, 3rd party tech line for any aftermarket hot rod parts manufacturer. If you would like to participate in some way, PDF files of instruction sheets of kits you have installed would be helpful in growing to that goal.
What I wanted to discuss is regarding the screw in MOPAR style ball joint that is very popular with the tubular control arms for the venerable Mustang II suspension.
The ball joint pictured at the right is the commonly used K772 MOPAR screw in ball joint used on tubular control arms throughout the industry. If you look up that number you will see it is meant for MOPAR Upper Mid-Sized cars. It is not intended for use as a lower ball joint where it will see tension loads.
The ball joint on the Left is a K719. It has the same threaded body of the K772 but if you notice one very different difference in that body, it encloses much more of the ball stud. This is a true lower ball joint meant for the Mid-Size and larger passenger cars. While it will directly replace your K772 ball joint in the control arm, the stem is larger. This larger stem requires you to machine your spindle to accept it.
While many thousands of cars and trucks are on the road using the K772 as a lower ball joint without failure, we have seen a few. Granted, this is a very robust ball joint, and if you are using a quality joint like the MOOG Problem Solver line, you may never experience a failure. We have, on the other-hand, solved some driveability issues associated with the Mustang II suspension, mainly the nervousness out on the highway but replacing the ball joints with a true lower ball joint. Now don’t take this as the end all-cure all solution to your Mustang II suspension, it’s just something we have experienced. Because the K772 is not meant to be loaded in tension, it can be “sticky” and not let your steering wheel return to center properly.
All of our Mustang II based control arms feature the K719 on the lower, and we machine the spindles to fit. If this seems like an upgrade you would like to make, give us a call and we can take care of you.
Been working on the design for the newest kit to our line. The 1955-1959 GM Truck Dakota kit. We will have this ready by the end of September in two forms. Our standard kit that accepts the stock ’87-’96 Dodge Dakota componentry and this will be our first venture into a tube control arm and coil over front end! Yes, you read that right we are going to offer tube control arms very soon. I have been working on the design and the fixturing to get these to a reasonable cost. So look for an official release of the newest kits very soon.
We have also been working on engine mounts and bolt on anti-roll bar mounts. I have some almost ready to go for Ford and Chevy engines in the 35-56 F100 kits. I need to check fitment on the others before we release them.
The first run of the newest generation Dakota kits for the 53-56 F100s will be run by the end of this week. We already have a handful of pre-orders. Look for them to be listed in the store this weekend!